Corrections Policy
Errors are corrected visibly, not silently edited away. That's a credibility commitment independent of anything else this outlet stands for — the same standard any serious publication holds itself to, and one we hold ourselves to regardless of whether a correction is convenient.
What counts as a correction
A correction is a fix to something factually wrong when it was published — a misstated figure, a misattributed quote, an incorrect date, a wrong characterization of a ruling or policy. It's different from an update, which adds new, materially relevant information that wasn't available or known at publication (a case reaching a verdict, a policy changing after the piece ran). Both are disclosed; we just label them for what they are.
How we correct
When a correction is warranted, we:
- Fix the error in the piece itself.
- Add a visible, dated note on the piece stating what was wrong and what changed — not a silent edit, and not a note buried where a reader wouldn't see it.
- For an error serious enough to undermine a piece's central claim, the Editor-in-Chief may retract it rather than issue a correction — the piece stays accessible with a clear notice explaining why, rather than disappearing outright.
How to report a possible error
Email corrections@dalitproject.org with the piece, the specific claim you believe is wrong, and a source if you have one. We read every report — disagreeing with a piece's argument or standpoint isn't the same as identifying a factual error, and we'll tell you honestly which one we think it is.
Corrections log
- CorrectionSeptember 13, 2026Ambedkar's Warning: How India's Largest Democracy Harvests Dalit Votes and Suppresses Dalit PowerRepresentation & Power
This piece misattributed a quote and analysis to "Surinder S. Jodhka" — the actual author of the referenced Wire piece is Subhajit Naskar, a political scientist at Jadavpur University; Jodhka is not mentioned in that article at all. Corrected throughout this piece.
- CorrectionSeptember 13, 2026How the BJP Weaponizes Caste ListsRepresentation & Power
This piece misattributed analysis of the 2026 Bengal election to "Surinder S. Jodhka" — the actual author of the referenced Wire piece is Subhajit Naskar, a political scientist at Jadavpur University; Jodhka is not mentioned in that article at all. Corrected throughout this piece.
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026A category of 200 million, and the crack running through itReservation & Redistribution
This piece originally described the 2024 sub-classification ruling as sitting unimplemented. It doesn't: Telangana, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, and, as of April 24, 2026, Karnataka have all approved internal-reservation formulas since the ruling. This piece has been updated to reflect this and what it does and doesn't resolve.
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026A committee, ten years laterAtrocity & Accountability
The sub-committee held its first working meeting on July 17, 2026, at the State Secretariat, chaired by Vikramarka with fellow committee members Uttam Kumar Reddy, Damodar Rajanarsimha, D. Sridhar Babu, and Ponnam Prabhakar. This piece has been updated to reflect it.
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026A rulebook struck down before it ran a single dayReservation & Redistribution
At the August 20 hearing, the bench (by then Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Bagchi and V. Mohana) gave the UGC four weeks to file its counter-affidavit and petitioners two weeks after that for rejoinders — putting the next real move around September 17, not yet reached as of this update. This piece now states that timeline precisely rather than as 'late August.'
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026A sit-in outlasts a promised apology, and a law still does not existDiaspora Justice
The government has since directed a 'fast track desk' to look into Nepali's sit-in and caste-discrimination complaints generally. As of the most recent reporting found, Nepali had not ended her protest and no date for the formal talks she is asking for had been announced — a concession this piece now notes, without a resolution to report.
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026Nepal's apology, and the hundred days that answered itDiaspora Justice
This piece originally reported only that the government's post-mortem and committee findings concluded suicide. That's incomplete: a DIG-led investigation committee separately recommended disciplinary action against 10 police personnel, from an SP down to a constable, over custody-management failures, even as Home Minister Sudhan Gurung told the National Assembly there was no evidence of physical or mental torture. Both are now true at once, and this piece has been updated to reflect it.
- UpdateSeptember 12, 2026The Invisible Hierarchy: What Casteism Looks Like on a Tech TeamLand, Labour & Economic Justice
A related case has since resolved favorably: on July 18, 2025, a federal court dismissed the Hindu American Foundation's separate lawsuit against California's Civil Rights Department, which had argued the state's authority to bring caste-discrimination cases itself violated Hindu Americans' First Amendment rights. The court found HAF lacked standing and, more broadly, upheld the state's authority to act. The underlying CRD case against Cisco is unaffected and remains active. This piece has been updated to note this.
- CorrectionSeptember 12, 2026When the Government Erases Dalit Dispossession, It Starts by Silencing the VideoLand, Labour & Economic Justice
This piece originally stated that when X challenged Section 79(3)(b) takedown orders in court in 2025, 'India's courts upheld the government's authority' — implying the matter was settled. It wasn't: X appealed the September 2025 single-judge dismissal to a Karnataka High Court division bench, and on July 22, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed every pending High Court challenge to the government's Sahyog takedown mechanism (X Corp's included) to hear the constitutional questions itself. The question this piece treats as closed is, in fact, still open before the Supreme Court. This piece has been corrected accordingly.